American Government 101 Primer

A free remedial tutorial on the subjects of Civics, Ethics and Logic

By Curmudgeon

Did Bob Geiger, head of Lift Ogden and vocal supporter of the Godfrey administration, cut too many classes in Civics 101? Sadly, that seems to be so, based on the remarkable letter he wrote to the Standard Examiner and which appears in Sunday's paper.

Mr. Geiger is unhappy because Ms. D. Littrell has raised questions about whether Ogden complied with the terms of a $900K development grant it got from the state to convert the American Can building into a High Tech business incubator and educational facility. Ms. Littrell thinks Ogden did not comply and should have to return the money to the state. "Why", Mr. Geiger asks, "would a local resident want to reject nearly $1 million in state funds for our city?"

OK, Mr. Geiger, get out your pencil, listen carefully and take notes this time. There are several points involving basic civics that you should have picked up in high school, and certainly in college, or even along the way as you became a citizen activist yourself.

(a) The grant to Ogden was state money, raised by taxes. If there is a question about whether the money was improperly obtained or used, then any resident of the state is fully entitled to ask those questions. If I discovered that, say, Provo got a million dollar state grant to improve traffic safety in the city and instead used the money to build a public skating rink and marriage gazebo in a downtown park, I'd be pounding out letters to the AG and my state representatives pretty quick. The fact that this particular grant benefited Ogden is not a sound reason to ignore how the grant was used if you suspect it was used improperly. "It may have been improper, but it benefited us so asking questions about it is unwarranted" is hardly a standard of public ethics I'd want to prevail statewide. Nor, Mr. Geiger, would you if you put you partisanship aside for a moment and thought about it.

(b) There is absolutely nothing wrong with a citizen, in this case Ms. Littrell, asking questions about whether the city used a state grant properly. Citizens are supposed to keep an eye on what their government does and to ask questions about government conduct. Yes, truly, Bob. That's what citizens are supposed to do. [Civics 101 yet again.]

So, Ms. Littrell raised a question about the city's use of the money. The agency that gave the city the money then quite properly took her question seriously and investigated the matter. [That's what government entities are supposed to do, Bob, when citizens have questions. Really it is. You could look it up.] The governor's office of economic development then passed what it turned up on to the Attorney General and asked for an opinion about the matter, which he rendered. Damned if I can find anything wrong in that process, Bob... except of course for your apparent belief that Ms. Littrell should not be asking questions about Godfrey administration actions because... well, apparently because she had the temerity to ask questions about policies you liked. But that's they way things are in a democracy, Bob. Americans have a long tradition, reaching back to the 1760s of being, occasionally, downright uppity with respect to their governors, and asking questions, sometimes embarrassing questions, and demanding answers to them. Sorry you'd apparently prefer us to be a nation of sheep, but that's not the way democracy has worked, as a rule, here in the USA. Get used to it.

(c) In his letter, Mr. Geiger identifies a Mr. Tom Owens as "a local obstructionist." Mr. Geiger explains that one of the things that makes Mr. Owens "an obstructionist" is that he "placed a bid on the Bootjack LLC property" which the city sold instead to Godfrey crony Mr. Chris Peterson. Of course, what Mr. Geiger left out of his letter is the fact that Mr. Owen's bid for the property was $30,000 more than Mr. Peterson offered for the property. Mr. Geiger also does not tell his readers that the city sold the land to the Mayor's crony for $30K less than Mr. Owens offered for it. If Mr. Geiger really thinks offering more for city land when it's put up for sale than a politician's crony offers for it constitutes obstructing Ogden's progress, then all I can say is, next time Ogden puts up public property for sale, I hope we get several, in fact dozens, of "obstructionists" offering more for the land than the Mayor's cronies are offering. We should be so lucky.

Finally, Mr. Geiger goes off on a "guilt by association" rant, claiming that Mr. Owens and Ms. Sharon Beech and Mr. Dan Schroeder have said nice things about Dorothy Littrell and [he claims] have "trivialized" Amer Sports decision to move to Ogden. He notes that all appear as supporters of Smart Growth Ogden, and that it's sad that [by implication] SGO is involved in "trivializing Amer Sports as a precursor to cheering the rejection of a $900,000 investment in Ogden."

I wouldn't presume to answer for Mr. Owens, Mr. Schroeder, Ms. Littrell or Ms. Beech, all of whom are fully capable of defending their views. Nor am I authorized to speak for SGO. But I would note that I've been a strong supporter of SGO from its inception, I continue to work with the group now, and to my knowledge, SGO has issued no statement "trivializing" Amer Sports coming to Ogden, nor has it taken a stand on the $900 grant Mr. Littrell asked questions about.

Which leaves Mr. Geiger arguing this: that SGO must approve of everything Ms. Littrell or Mr. Owens or Mr. Schroeder or Ms. Beech does or says on any public matter because they all support SGO on the issues it advocates. SGO defends its views on issues on which it has taken a stand. But to ask it to be responsible for statements it has not made on issues it has not addressed seems more than a little unreasonable. I'm sure Mr. Geiger would find it unreasonable if people insisted he defend statements he had not made on issues he had not addressed.

But just for fun, let's apply Mr. Geiger's logic [politely so called] to his own views. Mr. Geiger apparently thinks it is wrong for a citizen to offer more for city land up for sale than the Mayor's cronies offer for that land, that doing so is "obstructionist." Mr. Geiger is, I'm informed, a veteran of the Marine Corps. From which we can conclude, using his reasoning, that all Marine Corps veterans support selling public land to politicians' cronies for less than others would offer for that land, because Mr. Geiger is a Corps veteran and that's what he thinks.

For the sake of elevating public discussion in the city of Ogden, I strongly suggest Mr. Geiger find a little time to take a basic American government course at WSU. The political science department offers them fairly frequently. If Mr. Geiger wants to apply for a grant to pay his tuition for the course, I'll happily write in support of that. I'd consider it my civic duty.